A friend likens The New York Times to a 1960s adolescent who refuses to grow up. In a perpetual state of outrage, it is a newspaper of college snowflakes who embrace all forms of diversity except thought.

It sees its liberal politics not as a point of view, but as received wisdom that cannot be legitimately disputed.

The fixation on conformity reached a new low last week when the paper rolled out a coordinated attack on those of us who believe special counsel Robert Mueller ought to resign. I say coordinated because the newsroom and the opinion page produced similar pieces on the same day, showing again how Executive Editor Dean Baquet has erased the barrier between news and opinion and turned every page into an opinion page.

In the Times’ view, there are only two reasons to question Mueller’s credibility: insanity or treason. And so we detractors stand accused of engaging in a conspiracy that will embolden adversaries like Russia and produce a “constitutional crisis.”

The animating impulse for the assault is obvious — the Times is locked into its mission of destroying President Trump, and, like Hillary Clinton, still cannot accept Trump’s election as legitimate.

Consider that the paper’s dozen Op-Ed columnists are all Never-Trumpers. That’s either a remarkable coincidence or a litmus test for hiring.

But the paper, following a bad habit it developed during Barack Obama’s presidency, is not content with advocating its positions. Behaving like a party propaganda outlet, it takes a coercive approach to anyone with a different view. Objections are demonized as heretical.

The spear carrier for the Times’ newsroom opinion, media reporter Jim Rutenberg, singled me out for making a “dubious argument” that Mueller has too many conflicts of interest. Rutenberg, who assumed the role of Baquet’s apologist for its biased coverage of Trump, flatly declared doubts about Mueller unwarranted because “there is no evidence to support the assertion that the Democrats hired Fusion GPS with the purpose of getting Russians to spread ‘wild allegations’ about Mr. Trump.”

His straw man is a diversion and his logic turns the concept of evidence on its head, making it required before an investigation can start. Isn’t the point of investigations to find evidence?
Besides, if the lack of evidence is sufficient to avoid investigation, why is Mueller still investigating Trump, since more than a year of FBI probes has turned up no evidence of Trump wrongdoing.

The editorial page was even more venomous, calling criticism of the special counsel “crazy talk.” Incredibly, it also equated us with those who were silent in the face of Nazis by opening the editorial with, “And then they came for Robert Mueller.”

The zeal to protect Mueller from any criticism raises the question of why the Times cares so much. With the mainstream media in lockstep with its jihad against Trump,
why bother to smear a handful of skeptics?

My great sin was to argue that Mueller’s close relationship with his successor at the FBI, James Comey, was always a problem and that recent developments created a situation that was fixable only by resignation.

Because the FBI reportedly used the dossier to launch its probe of Trump and considered hiring its author, any probe faithful to Mueller’s assignment would include an examination of the FBI’s role in 2016.

That would put Mueller in the untenable position of investigating the agency he led for 12 years.

Moreover, as questions grow about whether the Obama White House used the dossier as justification for unmasking Trump associates picked up in wiretaps in an attempt to swing the election to Clinton, Mueller’s probe must also examine the previous administration. But that, too, is an impossible task for him because he spent more than four years working for Obama, where he was a colleague of ­Clinton’s.

For example, a judge with Mueller’s relationships and history would almost certainly be recused from overseeing those cases, so why should a special counsel investigating the president be held to a lesser standard? And if Justice Department rules required Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from anything related to the 2016 campaign because he was a Trump surrogate, those same rules should apply to Mueller’s relationship with Clinton, Obama and Comey.

In the end, the Times’ rabid ­defense of Mueller resembles the debacle of its 2016 campaign coverage. It never saw Trump’s victory coming because it was blinded by its hatred for him and contempt for his 63 million voters.

A year later, the Gray Lady has learned nothing.

A humble, true hero

It is said that the worst of times brings out the best in some people, and Police Officer Ryan Nash proved the point.

“I understand the importance of yesterday’s events and the role we played,” he said of himself and fellow cops. “I’m grateful for the recognition we received.”

With that, he said he would have nothing more to say.

Imagine a politician with enough humility to leave us wanting more.

DeB ‘tough justice’ talk is so much BS

Reader John Dumary Jr. knows BS when he smells it. He writes of the bike-lane murders: “Mayor de Blasio said that this terrorist should rot in jail. I was wondering, which prison in New York state allows prisoners to rot?

“This is the same mayor who told us jails should symbolize rehabilitation and positive change. He told us they should have comfortable furniture, soothing colors, calming acoustics and green spaces. I’ve never been to jail but I’m guessing it can’t be both pleasant and a place to rot at the same time.”

Nic’s the right pick

Tuesday is Election Day and Gotham needs a miracle to avoid four more years like the last four. As reader Ruth Cohen puts it, “We are weary.

I agree, and I do. I will vote for Malliotakis because she has the right goal of cleaning up City Hall. A mayor lacking integrity, no matter his promises, can never restore public trust. New York must do better.